The Lovely Bones

Before seeing "The Lovely Bones", I thought that, perhaps, all the negative reviews were a result of misunderstood subject matter. Maybe it was too original for people. Maybe it didn't resemble any of the conventions they anticipated it to and so they simply rebelled against wrapping their mind around it. And then I saw the movie and realized there is nothing to be misunderstood when you simply can't understand the film in the first place.

I've become accustomed to long movies from Peter Jackson, but at a mere 2 hours and 15 minutes the Subjective Time in this one is by far the longest. The movie is poorly structured without any sort of discernible arch... or at least one that I cared about. It's like the whole thing is cut up into sequences and scenes that were assembled apart from the whole and then strung together by a few very weak threads. The shifts and switchbacks are jarring and untamed. I read the book and I don't know if I could tell you what this movie is about. I found myself in my own "In-between" as I tried to decide whether it was worth trying to enjoy or should I just give up.

Part of the brilliance of "King Kong" (2005) was that it was a massive film that was given a level tenderness. It took its time. Everything could be absorbed appropriately and the emotions ran high. Jackson, however, takes a major step backwards as "The Lovely Bones" seems to have been treated as if it was established as a tender story and he desired to make it massive. It's excessively stylized and overdramatized for something with the level of tragedy and humanity it's suppose to have. None of the emotions that it wanted me to attain were earned.

For a character-driven story, the characters have very little presence. This is a family tragedy without the family. There is no sense of the supposed coping that happens. This should have been about a family's journey towards a world without one of their own and the connections that result. There should have been despair and heart ache over the life the characters longed for and wanted but were denied at no fault of their own. Instead I ached for the movie I longed for but was denied at the fault of the filmmakers.

I will forever believe this is a story that could make a great film. In this case, it didn't happen. Nowhere close, even if it does have good moments. I will stand for the visuals in this film. The effects are good and the cinematography rather splendid (although unfortunately the editing is too annoying to fully enjoy either). Much of the imagery is beautiful. The opening scenes play out effectively enough for the most part, particularly when Susie realizes what's happened to her as she sees her murderer in a bathtub with her own blood everywhere. Maybe I'm just thankful that the scene took place while I could still digest what was happening.

Unfortunately by the time Susie's sister, Lindsey, breaks into the killer's lair, a scene that on its own achieves a desired level of suspense, things were just too awry and I had simply stopped caring at a point about 45 minutes sooner. Alternatively, I listened to the rumbling of "Avatar" playing in the adjacent theatre, wishing that I had instead chosen to see it for a 4th viewing.

The Road

This is a difficult experience. It's a disturbing disaster film because you don't actually see the disaster. This brilliantly focuses the story into a character-driven experience. What haunts you is the unknown, but what consumes you is the hope and love the two main characters share. All this is attributable to Cormac McCarthy, but to have it actually translated onto the screen requires some skill, particularly from the cast.

The performances are what sell it. Viggo Mortensen as "Man" and Kodi Smit-McPhee as "Boy" avoid all of the cliches that could have cheapened the experience. Mortensen gives off a hint of determination while drowning in desparation that is at its peak in flashback scenes with his wife, "Woman" (played by Charlize Theron). Smit-McPhee plays a boy that is unlike any child in any other film. While he is open and optimistic to everything unfamiliar, he is also skeptical and fearful, because this man is all he has ever known. He is of another world because he knows nothing of our world.

What ruins the experience is the pacing. Anything based on work from McCarthy must be given time to be absorbed. McCarthy writes in prose and avoids certain punctuation for the purpose of being more direct and using "simple declarative sentences." He believes in not "blocking the page up with weird little marks." So why block this film up with more cuts than what it needs? To be simple is to be real and to be real requires as few edits as possible.

Director John Hillcoat and editor John Gregory should have learned a lesson from the Coen brothers (a.k.a. Roderick Jaynes) and slowed the tempo for this movie down. It might not be fair of me to hold the same standards for "The Road" as "No Country for Old Men," but the attitude and rhythm of the books (or at least the pieces I have read of them) are very much similar. The Coen brothers were successful because they submitted completely to McCarthy's narrative tone. Hillcoat and Gregory, on the other hand, are a bit more traditional in their approach and it clashes with their story.

Nevertheless, the visuals, the writing, and the acting all come together and manage to bring this collaborative struggle between a father and son to the screen and truly give a sense of each being "the other's world entire." I have not read the book, but after seeing this film I am now inspired to and know that I must. Given that, I render the film a success.

Avatar

It did not take long for a general opinion to form stating that the script to Avatar (for lack of a more common term) "sucks." It became a cliche for most cinephiles when discussing the film. Phrases resembling "if only he had paid more attention to the story" were heard throughout America during discussions amongst students in the classroom, employees at the water cooler, and fanboys on blogs. It was held against Cameron that he "stole" his story from Pocahantas (a rather lame accusation). I'm going to venture to say that Avatar, while lacking in total originality, is nevertheless an authentic experience that does not sell itself short.

Technically, the film is astounding. It's solid in every aspect of production and post-production. There is little one can say to refute that. Most importantly, everything comes together to create the needed emotion to make it all work. From the destruction of the massive "hometree" to the moments when Jake is gasping desperately for oxygen, I cared about these characters and what happened to them. No matter how stock they might be, they were well portrayed by the actors and the film did everything to earn the amount of care I had. Zoe Saldana in particular beautifully portrays her character through her grace and athleticism.

This is an outstanding film and there is no such thing as an outstanding film with a bad story. Everything about it is its story, from the way its shot and edited to the way its acted and scored. For every piece of dialogue that might be considered a bit stale I can point out a narrative-driven, lush visual that nullifies it. The use of avatars by the characters underlines a very human desire to reside within a body greater than that in which we do. It is an allegory for the idea that we are not at home as humans and that there is something beyond these physcical bodies we reside in. The world of Pandora is untainted and in wonderful harmony. A beautiful note is that it is a place without religion in the sense that we think of it. All of its creations are unified in recognizing a single omniscient deity.

It truly speaks volumes for Cameron's directorial abilities when complaints about the script run are as wild as they are. I must state that I believe the story to be good, even if it is older and used. I can point out several films from 2009 whose scripts truly left me shaking my head. Some of which I saw and others I did not even need to (unfair, but generally true). But Avatar is a film with a story that works well enough to support a fascinatingly original world with very spiritual themes.

I usually avoid dating my reviews and prefer to express opinions that could apply to any point in time relative to a release, but given how exceptional this film is and how exceptional it's been deemed by the worldwide Box Office intake, I thought for the sake of discussion it was worth noting the the opinions that have developed.

A Single Man

To describe the main character as "single" perhaps brings about the same connotation associated with a facebook relationship status. But to describe George (Colin Firth) in such a way, while true, would be trivial. He is a man apart from this world entirely, seeming to feel as if he has no place.

The main course of action takes place over the span of a single day. George's last day. With the death of his partner, he is consumed by melancholy and dreads mornings (although apparently this was the case even before his lover died). He puts up a facade at work and amongst friends but it seems that there is an internal cause beyond his widowed state that is never quite fully brought to the surface. As a homosexual he considers himself a minority, but in 1962 he is not a minority that is feared. He is one that is, as he describes in one of his classes, invisible.

Throughout the movie, George throughly buys into this idea. People all around him are reaching out, inviting him to do this or that or simply to be with him, but he stays away from any of that. A visual used throughout has George drowning as he tosses and turns in a large body of water, unable to break free. What finally pulls him out and allows him to find a breath of air is one of his students. They spend an evening together after running into each other (although in fairness the student was looking for him) at a bar and George finds friendship and bliss in this outing. He experiences a rare "moment of clarity."

The screenplay is insightful and poignant and Colin Firth will likely land a nod for Best Actor from the Academy. He convinces us that he has a great sorrow but that it almost seems bottled, for his character faces internal struggles. The problem is that we never get a chance to dive fully and completely into these sorrows. The narrative arch feels restrained by the 101 min running time.

Many of the visuals are desaturated but obtain their color when George interacts with another person and notices little bits of beauty. There is much to admire about human interaction and George knows it, but yet he avoids camaraderie in much of the film. George is a smart person and I'm convinced that something else that is not hinted at troubled this character.

This film won't ever get a sliver of the amount of mainstream attention as Brokeback Mountain ever got, but it's characters are more convincing. The love they share for another is indeed the love for another human that anyone can share, and not merely lust-based as I'm convinced Ennis and Jack's was. The pain George goes through is universal. I felt it, but not as much as I would have had it been on the screen longer.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

When I see movies, I simply shoot for story's that seem worth telling and one's that seem to be told well. I don't give much thought to the genre or target audience of the film. Thus, I was initially surprised to see several children in the theatre for this movie until I remembered the source material. By the time the end credits were rolling, I wanted to ask the kids in the theatre whether they enjoyed the movie or not. I couldn't help but wonder how I would have felt had I seen it when I was 7, 8, or 9. It would have had an odd effect on me, indeed.

This is not a traditional animated film, even if it does use one of the more traditional forms of animation. It is not always straightforward and direct nor does it even try to keep the senses fully satisfied during every second. In fact, the soundtrack can be very quiet at times with only simple, low dB foley effects added in to what would otherwise be silent stretches with no music to dictate the emotions with. I can imagine that I probably would not have enjoyed it as a child, because my taste was limited to what fulfilled my superficial expectations.

But kids should be taken to see this just so they can experience something different, yet in a familiar format. There is a lot that's expressed with these characters. Much of the narrative deals with finding one's identity. Mr. Fox asks:

"Why a fox? Why not a horse, a beetle, or a bald eagle?"

But nevertheless he is a fox, and in his attempt to live up to his desire of being "fantastic," he does what he does best and hatches up a master plan to steal from some rather mean farmers who in turn seek vengeance. This gets not only Mr. Fox, but the surrounding community running for their lives. Meanwhile, his son deals with insecurity after the arrival of his perfect cousin.

The script is witty, at times hilarious, and layered and Anderson makes nice use of the photography. His quirky direction is fitting to the main idea presented: we are all different, but "there is something fantastic about that." We have our abilities and inabilities and I suppose we can change how we feel about them. In the end, we just are who we are and do what we do and sometimes it might mean that no matter what we do to redeem ourselves, we are just another dead rat behind a Chinese restaurant.